Skip to main content
8:00 am
8:01 am
8:02 am
8:03 am
we will be calendaring a public discussion of that item i believe on the 10th of january. but it was a productive meeting
8:04 am
yesterday. >> thank you for that update. any additional comments, questions? >> commissioners, under the director arizona report, item 6, director's announcements. >> commissioners in the interest of time i think i will pass. i don't have anything urgent to report, but other than to wish you happy holidays. >> item 7, review of the past events of the past week. >> good afternoon, commissioners this. week at land use commission there were a couple of designations and both nominations were reviewed by the historic preservation commission earlier this year and this week at committee members of the public spoke in support of each. there was no opposition. and they were both recommended for approval to the full board. there is also a hearing on the western edition, after the redevelopment agency. this was at the request of
8:05 am
supervisor olague. the planning department was the only city agency to attend the hearing and staff presents supervisor olague's proposal to create the fillmore street neighborhood commercial district. several members of public spoke about this. this was an informational item, so no action was taken. at the full board hearing, supervisor campos allowing use. you considered this item at your november 29th hearing. this week the board approved it on first reading. on second and final read before thing board was the tdif update to article 4. introduced by mayor lee and sponsored by supervisors olague and wiener. this commission considered the ordinance. and you recommended approval with the modifications, the mayor included all of the modifications in the ordinance.
8:06 am
last week supervisor elsbernd successfully added an exemption on non-profits of you heard the california medical center's eir was continued until january of next year and there was an appeal of a categorical exemptionion for the mta's bikeway projects. the mta approved this project. and the town's concerns included topics such as traffic, pedestrian safety, loading of emergency vehicle access, air quality parking and the cumulative analysis. it did cover all of these topics and since the project would not have a significant impact. at the hearing some supervisors questioned if the appellant's concerns were not ceqa-related,
8:07 am
but rather on the merits of project. supervisor elsbernd commented this was a wonderful example of why it should be adopted since the appellant's issues had nothing to do with ceqa concerned. and lastly a new ordinance sponsor by board president chiu that changing the copy on a sign should not be treated as a new sign. so this will be before you in the next three months that. concludes my report. >> thank you. commissioner wu. >> thank you. i wanted to ask on the tdif, i understand that supervisor wiener will be convening meets
8:08 am
and you can give us updates on the broad direction of those meetings. >> we can do that, thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night and one item of note was a re-hearing request for building permit application dealing with glenn canyon park and before the hearing the request was withdrawn and the decision became final and the building permit is approved. just wanted to inform the commission on that and there are no other reports. >> commissioners, under item 814601 larkin street, informational, current status of the project design. >> good afternoon president fong and members of commission. i am going to keep my comments very brief here. the subject property was considered in june of 2010 and june of this year for proposal
8:09 am
to demolish the church. this commission cited concerns no. 1 about the demolition of the existing church which is considered an historic resource under ceqa, but also to do with what i would collective call the compatibility. the project sponsor has been working collaboratively with planning department staff and with representatives of the community in an attempt to address staff concerns, community members concerns and issues raised by this commission at previous hearings. so i will turn it over to the project sponsor to
8:10 am
address the specific ways in which the project has evolved and is continuing to evolve. thank you very much. i am available for questions. good afternoon commissioners and president, my name is ian birchel and represent the project sponsor and i would like to present the late design that we have developed with significant input from members of community and neighbors. it's been an intense and collaborative effort since june. we have changed the project, as well as changing the design. it's not being just about the shape of the building, the color of materials, or the height or the setback.
8:11 am
it's also been about considerations for community, neighbors, and an open discourse between project sponsor and the community. one of the first things that we did was to try to address the issue of thekin condition of the church on the exterior and address concerns of neighbors with respect to safety, cleanliness, maintenance of the exterior. once we established a line of communication there, and did some needed things, lighting, barriers, we were then able to move forward and begin to talk about the design, which i would like to share with you. i would also like to thank the community, the neighbors. the neighborhood association, who have worked very, very hard, and have been very
8:12 am
committed and resilient. liz representing 1630 clay owners, extremely helpful, cooperative, and in essence making us listen to what you had to say and what they had to say. so with that i would like to move forward with the show. yellow boundary around the church. next please. context. we have seen these before. next. i'm not going to try to read these to you. they are in your package, but they are basically issues brought up bit community, by the commission and by individuals and our responses to them. next, please. the last one on this list here addresses bmr units.
8:13 am
we are proposing two on-site, bmr units and one in-lieu fee. next, please. i would like to look here. this is kind of like describing the result of the process over the last six months. the major design revisions on the left are all of the parking goes into one basement, with one garbage -- garage entrance. the height has been reduced one full story, and it's actually down to 53'. the mapping along clay, adjacent to 1630 clay. four story against four story the same is true of the larkin.
8:14 am
it was at one time a gap that was opening onto larkin between the historic building and our new building so this design is now significantly different one than shown to the commission and we have included a community room, which we'll discuss. it's still ongoing discussions about how the community room will be used and under what kind of conditions and terms. the community considerations on the right we're including three community parking spaces, which could be either rented or purchased. we have one car shed designated for public use and one car shed dedicated to use by the residents. the street greening, we have a proposal that is not a contract yet, but we have a proposal from the project sponsor to provide up to 100 street trees on both sides and the 1600
8:15 am
block of clay. this is a program that would be contracted with friends of the urban forest and it would be managed with some financial assistance from the project sponsor by polk neighborhood association working with the community and property owners and friends of the urban forest. it would come with a five-year pre-paid maintenance program. the community room, the project sponsor will provide free use of the community room with a separate street access from larkin street. and this will be written into the cc os in the building to be available for community use for five years. at the end of five years, ongoing use will be determined by what the preceding uses have shown. next, please. these are just highlights of the basic data. 27 units in the building. the reduction in size has changed the unit mix and size of some of the units and there
8:16 am
are now more one-bedrooms than before and we have 32 parking spaces, 27 for 27 units, 3 for community assigned and two for car-share. excuse me. next, please. this is a little bit burnt out, i apologize, but you have it in your package. the rendering in the middle is the design rejected at the conditional use application in june. to the left is our first attempt at the demasing of the building and running along the bottom there are sequential demasing proposals that were discussed with members of the community, polk neighbors to try to achieve a compromise that would work for all. in the end, we did something a little different from the right-hand slide. that is the design it's used to be.
8:17 am
this is the design as it is now. we're going to do a little bit of back and forth here. what we have here -- and i will speak loud enough to be heard -- what we have here is an attempt to create ambiguity about the building . is it really one building? the same concept [ inaudible ]
8:18 am
>> if you can maybe -- so they can catch the audio ? thank you. >> next, please. this is how it used to be on larkin and the gap that runs through the back. that is how it used to be. next. and what we have done here is again taken the top story off, createed ad a tricomposition with a little bit of ambigutility. on the left-hand section of the building there is an opening which is the entrance to the community room. the main entrance is where it always was, which was in the middle. next, please.
8:19 am
significant reduction in scale and we have set the building back 18'. at the top floor. we have introduced this four-story element that nests 1360 clay and there is a chance as you walk around the building for you to get the pause between the elements and components of the building. it gives you a little bit of room to breathe as opposed to being one big building as it once was. next, please. this is just an aerial view of the model. and i just want you to focus on the green, if you can. on the left-hand side is the courtyard and rear yard from the earlier scheme. and what we have done here is by closing the gap on larkin, we have been able to open the green l next to 1630 clay. that essentially gives an 18' wide area -- do i have to really stop after six years?
8:20 am
can i have your permission just to continue? >> are you close to the end? >> yes. >> keep going, but i think we kind of get the idea. we realize the changes. finish up and maybe the commission has questions. >> let's roll very quickly through these. keep going, please. these are various views showing the setback. street view before-and-after. street view before-and-after. you will see the basements there. the parking is there. thank you. this slide here i just want to spend ten seconds on this. the left-hand side is the stanley design, again 1630 clay street. the right-hand design is our former design 1630 clay. next. this is the current design. all of the windows except for one on the 5th floor are kept
8:21 am
open for sunlight and light and to make sure that those windows that are l windows actually get some light. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate the tremendous amount of work that has gone into the revision of this. >> a lot coming from them, too. >> open up for public comment i have two speaker cards. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am the chair of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods planning and land use committee. we are very concerned that this was set up very dangerous
8:22 am
precedence regarding the approval process. this project was denied twice before. and should have 12-month waiting period. and here it's only been three months and it's up for approval again. and we think this is a bad, bad precedent. as far as this project should be coming up in 12 months, not three months. other thing is that we find it somewhat distressing that the federal judge is going to impose their will and save them time and force the city to go back or disregard city policy and process. we think that should not occur. an historic resource is been
8:23 am
planed for destruction/demolition and if this should occur, there should be a significant community benefit. and the commission, i believe, commissioner wu has stated that the community benefit is not there. and it seems like this new project will not allow it to happen. there are plans for senior housing, senior affordable housing, which the city drastically needs. the city does not need 27 more market-rate housing. a senior affordable project can provide, perhaps up to 40 or so units that the city drastically needs.
8:24 am
we have met our goals for market-rate housing. we are far, far behind in regards to affordable housing. i would like to close by saying that coalition for san francisco neighborhoods supports adaptable use for senior housing or another preservation alternative. to pursue enforcement actions for building code and ceqa violations. please wait 12 months before this project is considered. >> did you call rowena jen? >> yes. rowena had to leave and so i have this statement that they
8:25 am
are back hacking up the building again. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? >> yes. good afternoon commissioners my name is elizabeth gordan and i with my co-owners own the building next door, 1630 clay street. it's a 6-unit residential building and i'm speaking on behalf of all the owners of 1630 clay street today. our building is the neighboring building most impacted bit proposed project. we have been supportive of this project conditionally since 2006. with this said, when we last testified before you on june 28th, we reported that we were in discussion with the project sponsor and architect to address our concerns. we had yet however to reach an agreement and get that into a signed document.
8:26 am
almost six months later we're definitely further down the road, and very encouraged by the progress that has been made on the overall design. but we still have some outstanding matters with this sponsor. of utmost priority to us has been maintaining as many of our original 11 property line windows as possible. windows that date back decades and decades if not to 1923 when the building was built. in anticipation of this project getting approved at some point and what we think was a very substantial showing of good faith on our part, we already voluntarily removed at our own expense five of those 11 windows when our residential units were being remodeled between 2006 and 2009. at issue at this time is retention of our remaining six property line windows. the sponsor's new design does a
8:27 am
good job of maintaining light and air for two of those remaining six windows. they are at the back of the building on our top-back unit. the proposed design apparently stops its building 3.5' away from three of our property line windows in the kitchens of our front units. the new plan though, if i understand it correctly, is that it does not match our light well mid-building. the new building runs right up to an alongside our building by about half of our light well. this will further compromise necessary light into our bathroom and kitchen windows in our three front units. the plan also completely eliminates one of our property line windows in the dining room of our front unit. we need a detailed drawing of exactly how this building will impact our property line windows and need to reach an
8:28 am
amicably place with this developer. we have asked him to participate in a pre-op meaning with the city or at least fund that so we can get clarity from the city, namely dbi and fire about what will happen with our remaining property line windows that are left. we would appreciate cooperation in that regard. we would like to continue to support the project, we would hope to be able to. >> thank you very much. calling up a couple more speakers. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon commissioners. i have been coming to this podium to speak on this topic since dwight alexander was president of the commission. so you can call me snaggletooth today. a lot of things that were said today by the project sponsor's architect are true
8:29 am
and factual. tom gave me a call and he got an email from director ram saying that we would like you to participate in a conference with judge bieler. the judge is a good communicator and we sat down and gave the project sponsor a simple framework. and after a couple of back and forth we watched the last commission hearing, we watched it a few times. we took notes of everything that you said. and we gave those notes and comment back to the project sponsor, because we're not experts. you are experts also and i'm curious today what your thoughts are in terms of dialogue about this project. because we have all